Pre-Request Tactics

Outline

• Foot-in-the-door technique

• Door-in-the-face technique

• Research developments

• Discussion/applications

Sequence Check List

• As usual, we consider the technique sequence– Interactional context– Commencement of interaction– Request– Compliance Implication Cues– Schedule & deadline– Compliance test– Opportunity– Consequences

Sequence Check List

• Today’s techniques– Have two sequences of note

Foot-in-the-Door

• Small then large request

• Pretest—high PFC

• FITD– Sign a petition for the homeless– Control

• Large request– Donate time to canned food drive– Reminder vs no reminder

33

41

73

27

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Com

plia

nce

wit

h la

rge r

equest

Control Foot-in-the-doorCompliance technique

Prior helpfulness focus

No prior helpfulness focus

Percentage of participants that complied with the large (target) request as a function of compliance technique and presence versus absence helpfulness focus. Participants on their way to a laboratory site were approached and asked to sign a petition or were not given this request. Later, they were given the target request, to spend time volunteering for a canned food drive, with or without the reminder question, “Are you a helpful person?”. The combination of the request and the reminder produced a notably elevated level of compliance with the target request.

Foot-in-the-Door

• First request– Interactional context

• Selected sample/PFC• Selected interactional site• Relational definition/attitude• Continuous operation and development of attitude from this

point

– Commencement of interaction• Engagement

– Request• Clear model—sign petition• Clear expectation of performance

Foot-in-the-Door

• First request (continued)– Compliance implication cues

• Nice source• Worthy cause

– “to give greater consideration to the plight of the homeless “

• Cost clear• Leaning

– Schedule/deadline/test• An immediate response was required

– Opportunity to comply• Petition and time to sign

Foot-in-the-Door

• First request (continued)– Consequence

• Feedback– “Thank you for your helpfulness.”

• Impact– Value expression domain– Social adjustment domain– Ego defense domain

• Availability of pertinent attitudes

Foot-in-the-Door

• Second request– Interactional context

• Same participants as first request• Took part in revise room• Experimenter-participant relationship• Psychology Club-participant relationship

– Commencement of interaction• W/ experimenter• W/ Psychology Club

– Request• To read and complete the memo seeking volunteers

Foot-in-the-Door

• Second request (continued)– Compliance implication cues

• “Are you a helpful person?”– Attitude activation

» Value/social/ego

• Cost implication– Attitude activation

» Instrumental function

– Leaning now

Foot-in-the-Door

• Second request (continued)– Schedule and deadline– Compliance test

• Commitment, not actual volunteering

– Opportunity to respond

Foot-in-the-Door

• Conclusions

Door-in-the-Face

• Nature of the technique– Proposed account

• Three experimental conditions– Confederate approached participant with

request(s)• DITF• Perceptual contrast• Control

Door-in-the-Face

• Large request– We’re currently recruiting university students to work as

voluntary, unpaid counselors at the County Juvenile Detention Center. The position could require two hours of your time per week for a minimum of two years. You would be working more in the line of a Big Brother (Sister) to one of the boys (girls) in the detention home. Would you be interested in being considered for one of these positions?

• Small request– We’re recruiting university students to chaperone a group of

boys (girls) from the County Juvenile Detention Center on a trip to the zoo. It would be voluntary, unpaid, and would require about two hours of one afternoon or evening. Would you be interested in being considered for one of these positions?

Door-in-the-Face

50

25

16.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Co

mp

lian

ce

ra

te

Door-in-the-face Perceptualcontrast

No lead request

Experimental condition

• Compliance rate by experimental condition, 2nd request

• Perceptual contrast effect ruled out

• Reciprocal concessions process supported

Door-in-the-Face

• First request– Interactional context

• Unselected sample• University setting

– People walking alone on university walkways

• Peer-stranger relationship– Attitude

– Commencement of interaction• Imposed• Engagement likely

Door-in-the-Face

• First request (continued)– Request

• Clear and informative

– Compliance cues• Cost

– Extremely high

• Worthy cause• Altruistic confederate

– Leaning• Some ambivalence• Refusal

Door-in-the-Face

• First request (continued)– Schedule/deadline/test– Opportunity to respond– Response to large request

• Refusal

– Residual attitudes• Value expression, social adjustment, ego defense• Available in memory

Door-in-the-Face

• Second request– Interactional context

• Prior refusal• Residual attitudes

– Commencement of interaction• Continuous with previous large request segment

– Request• Clear and informative• Expectation of performance

Door-in-the-Face

• Second request (continued)– Compliance cues

• Cost• Worthy cause• Charitable experimenter• Involves caring

– 2nd request, concession by requester

• Leaning at this point– Ambivalence– Value expression, social adjustment, ego protection vs

cost

Door-in-the-Face

– Second request (continued)• Schedule/deadline/test

– Immediate response required– Commitment to act, not actual volunteering

• Opportunity– Provided

Door-in-the-Face

• Conclusions

Figure 4.1: Multiple requests in social influence. One social influence sequence can serve as a context for a subsequent influence attempt. This sort of thing occurs in such techniques as foot-in-the-door. In these cases, an influence source engages a recipient in a formal interactional ritual. The outcome of this event serves as an important part of the context of a subsequent influence attempt.

Context

BehaviorAttitude

Interaction

Perception of object

Opportunity

Compliance test

Consequences

Context

BehaviorAttitude

Interaction

Perception of object

Opportunity

Compliance test

Consequences

Research Developments

Prior Requests

• Discussion– Applications